Search

Dominik Ose,1,2 Eva C Winkler,3 Sarah Berger,1 Ines Baudendistel,1 Martina Kamradt,1 Felicitas Eckrich,1 Joachim Szecsenyi1 1Department of General Practice and Health Services Research, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany; 2Department of Population Health, Health System Innovation and Research, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA; 3Program for Ethics and Patient-oriented Care in Oncology, National Centre for Tumour Diseases, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany Purpose: Given the inherent complexity of cancer care, in which personal, social, and clinical aspects accumulate and interact over time, self-management support need to become more comprehensive. This study has the following two aims: 1) to analyze and describe the complexity of individual patient situations and 2) to analyze and describe already established self-management strategies of patients to handle this complexity.Methods: A qualitative study was conducted. Ten focus groups were performed collecting perspectives of the following three user groups: patients with colorectal cancer (n=12) and representatives from support groups (n=2), physicians (n=17), and other health care professionals (HCPs; n=16). Data were analyzed using qualitative content analysis.Results: The results showed that cancer patients are struggling with the complexity of their individual situations characterized by the 1) “complexity of disease”, 2) “complexity of care”, and 3) “complexity of treatment-related data”. To deal with these multifaceted situations, patients have established several individual strategies. These strategies are “proactive demanding” (eg, to get support and guidance or a meaningful dialog with the doctor), “proactive behavior” (eg, preparation of visits), and “proactive data management” (eg, in terms of merging treatment-related data and to disseminate these to their health care providers).Conclusion: Patients with colorectal cancer have to handle a high complexity of individual situations within treatment and care of their disease. Private and social challenges have a culminating effect. This complexity increases as patients experience a longer duration of treatment and follow-up as patients have to handle a significantly higher amount of data over time. Self-management support should focus more on the individual complexity in a patient’s life. This includes assisting patients with strategies that have already been established by themselves (like preparation of visits). Keywords: self-management, health care utilization, colorectal cancer, chronic care, health services research, complexity

Anika Sparla,1 Sebastian Flach-Vorgang,1 Matthias Villalobos,2 Katja Krug,1 Martina Kamradt,1 Kadiatou Coulibaly,1 Joachim Szecsenyi,1 Michael Thomas,2 Sinikka Gusset-Bährer,2 Dominik Ose1,3 1Department of General Practice and Health Services Research, Heidelberg University Hospital, 2Internistische Onkologie der Thoraxtumoren, Thoraxklinik im Universitätsklinikum Heidelberg, Translational Lung Research Center Heidelberg (TLRC-H), Member of the German Center for Lung Research, Heidelberg, Germany; 3University of Utah, Department of Population Health Sciences, Health System Innovation and Research, Salt Lake City, UT, USA Purpose: Lung cancer is a disease with a high percentage of patients diagnosed in an advanced stage. In a situation of palliative treatment, both patients and their relatives experience diverse types of distress and burden. Little research has been done to identify the individual difficulties and resources for patients with advanced lung cancer and their relatives. Especially, standardized questionnaire-based exploration may not assess the specific distressing issues that pertain to each individual on a personal level. The purpose of this qualitative study is to explore and compare individual difficulties and resources for lung cancer patients and their relatives within the palliative care context.Methods: Data were collected by qualitative interviews. A total of 18 participants, nine patients diagnosed with advanced lung cancer (International Classification of Diseases, tenth edition, diagnosis C-34, stage IV) starting or receiving palliative treatment and nine relatives, were interviewed. Data were interpreted through qualitative content analysis.Results: We identified four main categories of difficulties: communication and conflicts, home and everyday life, thinking about cancer, and treatment trajectory. In general, difficulties were related to interpersonal relationships as well as to impact of chemotherapy. Family, professional caregivers, and social life were significant resources and offered support to both patients and relatives.Conclusion: Results suggest that patient and relative education could reduce difficulties in several areas. Patients seem to struggle with the fear of not having any perspective in therapy. Relatives seem to experience helplessness regarding their partner’s deterioration and have to handle their own life and the care work simultaneously. The most important resource for both patients and relatives is their family. In addition, professional lung cancer nurses support relatives in an emotional and organizational way. Intense supportive care for relatives should be standardized. Keywords: inoperable lung cancer, palliative care, difficulties, resources, health services research, qualitative research

Katja Goetz,1 Jessica Bungartz,2 Joachim Szecsenyi,1 Jost Steinhaeuser3 1Department of General Practice and Health Services Research, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany; 2Praxis Medizin im Zentrum, München, Germany; 3Institute of Family Medicine, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Lübeck, Germany Background: Patients’ evaluation of medical care is an essential dimension of quality of care and an important aspect of the feedback cycle for health care providers. The aim of this study was to document how patients with a Turkish background evaluate primary care in Germany and determine which aspects of care are associated with language abilities.Methods: The study was based on an observational design. Patients with a Turkish background from German primary care practices completed the EUROPEP (European Project on Patient Evaluation of General Practice Care) questionnaire consisting of 23 items. Seventeen primary care practices were involved with either German (n=8) or Turkish (n=9) general practitioners (GPs).Results: A convenience sample of 472 patients with a Turkish background from 17 practices participated in the study (response rate 39.9%). Practices with a German GP had a lower response rate (19.6%) than those with a Turkish GP (57.5%). Items evaluated the highest were “keeping data confidential” (73.4%) and “quick services for urgent health problems” (69.9%). Subgroup analysis showed lower evaluation scores from patients with good or excellent German language abilities. Patients who consulted a Turkish GP had higher evaluation scores.Conclusion: The evaluation from patients with a Turkish background living in Germany with either Turkish or German GPs showed lower scores than patients in other studies in Europe using EUROPEP. However, our results had higher evaluation scores than those of Turkish patients evaluating GPs in Turkey. Therefore, different explanation models for these findings should be explored in future studies. Keywords: migrant health, quality of care, primary health care, patient satisfaction, patient evaluations

Gerda Längst,1 Hanna Marita Seidling,2,3 Marion Stützle,2,3 Dominik Ose,1 Ines Baudendistel,1 Joachim Szecsenyi,1 Michel Wensing,1,4 Cornelia Mahler1 1Department of General Practice and Health Services Research, University Hospital of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany; 2Cooperation Unit Clinical Pharmacy, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany; 3Department of Clinical Pharmacology and Pharmacoepidemiology, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany; 4Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Scientific Institute for Quality of Healthcare, Nijmegen, the Netherlands Purpose: This qualitative study in patients with type 2 diabetes and health care professionals (HCPs) aimed to investigate which factors they perceive to enhance or impede medication information provision in primary care. Similarities and differences in perspectives were explored.Methods: Eight semistructured focus groups were conducted, four with type 2 diabetes patients (n=25) and four with both general practitioners (n=13) and health care assistants (n=10). Sessions were audio and video recorded, transcribed verbatim, and subjected to computer-aided qualitative content analysis.Results: Diabetes patients and HCPs broadly highlighted similar factors as enablers for satisfactory medication information delivery. Perceptions substantially differed regarding impeding factors. Both patients and HCPs perceived it to be essential to deliver tailored information, to have a trustful and continuous patient–provider relationship, to regularly reconcile medications, and to provide tools for medication management. However, substantial differences in perceptions related to impeding factors included the causes of inadequate information, the detail required for risk-related information, and barriers to medication reconciliation. Medication self-management was a prevalent topic among patients, whereas HCPs’ focus was on fulfilling therapy and medication management responsibilities.Conclusion: The findings suggest a noteworthy gap in perceptions between information provision and patients’ needs regarding medication-related communication. Medication safety and adherence may be improved if HCPs collaborate more closely with diabetes patients in managing their medication, in particular by incorporating the patients’ perspective. Health care systems need to be structured in a way that supports this process. Keywords: medication information, patient–provider communication, type 2 diabetes, focus groups, primary care

Dominik Ose, Cornelia Mahler, Ines Vogel, Sabine Ludt, Joachim Szecsenyi, Tobias FreundUniversity Hospital of Heidelberg, Department of General Practice and Health Services Research, Heidelberg, GermanyBackground: Medication adherence can be essential for improving health outcomes. Patients with multiple chronic conditions, often receiving multiple medications, are at higher risk for medication nonadherence. Previous research has focused on concordance between patients and providers about which medication should be taken. However, the question of whether patients and providers are concordant in rating actual medication intake has not been answered as yet. This study aimed to explore the extent and predictors of patient – provider concordance in rating medication adherence in patients with multiple chronic conditions.Methods: Overall medication adherence was measured by self-report (Medication Adherence Report Scale, MARS-D) in a sample of 92 patients with multiple chronic conditions. Twelve treating primary care physicians were asked to rate medication adherence in these patients using a mirrored version of the MARS-D. Concordance between external rating and self-reported medication adherence was analyzed descriptively. Predictors of concordance in rating medication adherence were explored in a multilevel analysis.Results: Patients rate their medication adherence markedly higher than their general practitioner. Accordingly, the percentage of concordance ranges between 40% (forgot to take medication) and 61% (deliberately omitted a dose). In multilevel analysis, concordance in rating medication adherence was positively associated with being the single primary care provider (β 2.24, P < 0.0001) and frequent questioning about medication use (β 0.66, P = 0.0031). At the patient level, “not [being] married” (ß −0.81, P = 0.0064) and “number of prescribed medications” (β −0.10, P = 0.0203) were negative predictors of patient – provider concordance in rating medication adherence.Conclusion: Concordance for rating medication adherence between general practitioners and their patients was low. Talking about medication on a regular basis and better continuity of care may enhance patient – provider concordance in rating medication adherence as a prerequisite for shared decisions concerning medication in patients with multiple chronic conditions.Keywords: patient – provider concordance, medication adherence, primary health care, multimorbidity, communication

Cornelia Mahler1, Katja Hermann1, Susanne Jank2, Walter Emil Haefeli2, Joachim Szecsenyi11Department of General Practice and Health Services Research, 2Department of Clinical Pharmacology and Pharmacoepidemiology, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, GermanyBackground: Regular intake of medicines prevents hospitalization and improves treatment outcomes in patients with chronic diseases; however, requires good patient–physician communication. Yet, this communication is often insufficient and characterized by misunderstandings. This paper aimed to explore whether a training session on medication counseling for general practitioners (GPs) can improve patient satisfaction about information on medicines.Methods: Within a seamless care project (HeiCare®), a questionnaire to assess patient satisfaction with information on medicines and other questions related to medication issues was distributed among 370 patients. Results were returned to physicians in a feedback report, discussed in a training session, and a subsequent second questionnaire was sent to patients.Results: Patients showed a significant increase in satisfaction with overall information on medicines and with information on potential problems when experiencing medication counseling after their GP received a feedback report and/or training session.Conclusion: Individual feedback and training sessions can improve medication counseling and GPs’ awareness of patients’ attitudes toward medicines and thus increase patients’ satisfaction with medicines information received. Regular feedback to the GP on patients’ satisfaction with information and patients’ beliefs in medicines can be obtained by patient surveys or by addressing these issues in regular medication counseling encounters. Physicians need to be trained to listen to patients’ views and concerns on medication.Keywords: medication counseling, patient satisfaction, beliefs in medicines, feedback, general practice

Background: Many patients diagnosed with cancer use complementary and integrative healthcare (CIH) approaches to manage their cancer- and treatment-related symptoms and improve their well-being. Evidence suggests that counseling on CIH can improve health outcomes and decrease healthcare costs by increasing patient activation. This qualitative study explores the experiences of cancer patients who underwent interprofessional counseling on CIH to gain insights into how these patients were able to integrate recommended CIH measures into their daily lives while undergoing conventional cancer treatment. Methods: Forty semi-structured interviews were conducted with cancer patients participating in the CCC-Integrativ study and its process evaluation. The interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using content analysis following Kuckartz and Rädiker. A purposeful sampling strategy was used to achieve a balanced sample regarding gender, age, cancer diagnosis, and treatment approach. Results: Most patients with cancer reported largely implementing the CIH recommendations. Participants acknowledged the efficacy of CIH recommendations in managing their symptoms. They felt strengthened and empowered to actively take part in their healthcare decisions. However, the patients encountered obstacles in incorporating the recommended CIH applications into their daily routines. These challenges encompassed the effort required for treatment application (e.g., baths, compresses), limitations imposed by the cancer disease (e.g., fatigue, pain), difficulties acquiring necessary materials, associated costs, and lack of infrastructure for CIH. Facilitators of CIH implementation included the availability of easily manageable CIH measures (e.g., herbal teas), informative materials on their application, distribution of samples, family support, and a high level of self-efficacy. The patient-centered approach and strong patient-provider partnership within the counseling context were perceived as empowering. Participants expressed a desire for a consistent point of contact to address their CIH concerns. Conclusions: The findings underscore the benefits of CIH counseling for cancer patients’ symptom management and overall well-being. Healthcare professionals providing CIH counseling to patients with cancer may recognize the barriers identified to better support their patients in the regular use of CIH.

Introduction: Self-care includes taking care of our psychosocial health. Many experts agree that self-care should be included in training for Family Medicine (FM) residents, though it is unclear to what extent and by what means. Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate competencies of FM residents in self-care and changes in knowledge, skills and attitudes after an educational compact intervention.Methods: The authors performed a pre-post comparison on residents who were registered in the FM residency program KWBW VerbundweiterbildungPLUS© (n = 401). FM residents were offered participation in a self-care training (270 minutes featuring a broad spectrum of input and practical experience). The intervention group (IG) completed a questionnaire directly before the seminar (T1) and 10 weeks afterwards (T2). Non-attendees (=control group; CG) were asked to fill out a basic questionnaire once. Basic questionnaires for IG and CG covered previous experiences and skills while the follow-up questionnaire at T2 also focused on change of competencies and attitudes. All questionnaires contained free-text questions to capture qualitative impressions.Results: 287 FM residents (IG: n = 212; CG: n = 75) participated in the study. Generally, 86.4% of FM residents had worried that their profession might endanger their personal health (T1: n = 180, CG: n = 68). At T2, 59.5% of IG (n = 66/111) declared that they would not worry about their personal health anymore (T1:T2, p < .01). IG learned to facilitate time for recreation (T1:T2, p = .04) and to use relaxation techniques (T1:T2, p = .01). Gain in competence was described in awareness of stress, self-reward, activation of personal resources, and time management. A total of 85.6% of IG reflected their attitudes towards psychosocial health of physicians in general (n = 95/111) and 22.5% of IG changed the views on their own health (n = 25/111) in terms of improved risk-awareness, increased intention for self-care and change of behavior.Conclusion: A compact intervention in self-care strengthens competencies, increases awareness, and helps FM residents identify their psychosocial health risks. Further research is necessary to specify the effectiveness of similar compact interventions in self-care and their long-term results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Access to outpatient mental healthcare can be challenging for patients. In Germany, a national structural reform was implemented in 2017 to accelerate and enhance access to outpatient psychotherapy and reduce waiting times. During the first phase of the study ‘Evaluation of a structural reform of the outpatient psychotherapy guideline (ES-RiP)’ and embedded into a process evaluation, the implementation was to be evaluated through assessing general practitioners’ (GPs) and psychotherapists’ (PTs) perspectives regarding utilization of provided new measures, and perceived potential for optimization. Particular focus was on patients with a comorbidity of mental disorders and chronic physical conditions (cMPs). Methods This exploratory cross-sectional qualitative study used on-site and online focus group discussions and semi-structured telephone interviews with GPs and outpatient PTs. Generated data were analyzed using thematic framework analysis. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze participant characteristics collected via a socio-demographic questionnaire. Results Perspectives on the structural reform were heterogenous. GPs and PTs considered the component of timely initial psychotherapeutic assessment consultations beneficial. GPs disapproved of their deficits in detailed information about the structural reform and exchange with outpatient PTs. Improvement suggestions included structured short information exchange and joint quality circles. The overall number of available outpatient PTs in rural areas was perceived as insufficient. For patients with cMPs, GPs saw patient barriers for therapy access and continuity in low intrinsic motivation, physical impediments and older age. PTs also saw patient challenges regarding low intrinsic motivation and keeping scheduled appointments. They considered post-reform administrative efforts to be high and reported that the regulations (conformity) lead to planning difficulties and financial losses. Reform elements were tailored to fit in with PTs key therapy areas. Stronger networking and joint lectures were suggested as remedy for the currently still limited exchange with GPs. Unlike the GPs, PTs emphasized that accepting patients into psychotherapeutic treatment was independent of a possibly present chronic physical disease. Conclusions The findings contribute to understanding the integration of the delivered structural reform into daily care processes and provide an indication about reached targets and potential improvements. Further phases of the ES-RiP study can build on the findings and broaden insights. Trial registration Registration-ID DRKS00020344 (DRKS German Register of Clinical Trials.

Communication and the care of patients with advanced cancer are a dynamic, interactive and challenging process, often characterised in every day practice by discontinuity and lack of coordination. The objective of this study was to explore the patients’ and family‐caregivers’ needs and preferences regarding communication, quality of life and care over the trajectory of disease. The second aim was to assess health professionals’ views on a longitudinally structured, forward‐thinking communication approach based on defined milestones. A qualitative approach was chosen incorporating semi‐structured interviews with nine patients with metastatic lung cancer and nine relatives, and focus groups with 15 healthcare providers from different professions involved in the care of these patients. Patients and relatives described a situation of shock and coping deficits with moments of insufficient communication and lack of continuity in care. Healthcare providers reported the strong need for improvement in communication within the team and between patients and professionals and welcomed the implementation of a longitudinal communication approach. Requirements for the implementation of a longitudinal communication approach include specific communication training with focus on the process that patients and relatives are involved in. Team‐building measures and the necessary flexibility to respect individuality in life should be incorporated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]